Pages

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Secretary Hilary Clinton’s self-congratulation over American leaders’ unanimous disapproval of the intended burning of Muslim religious texts misses out the truth about American society and politics, and the crisis of its fundamental values.
The mass furore over the construction of a Muslim community centre blocks away from Ground Zero is symptomatic of a serious malaise. Public sentiment often manifests in funny ways, but what is worrying is that this has not very seriously bothered many of America’s stout guardians of values, its face-saving rhetoricians.
Protestors against the construction are not terrified by the prospect of bombs hidden away in the mosque’s secret chambers, but are offended by the symbolism of it, and this sheer audacity of America’s alienated Muslim minority.
The name ‘Ground Zero mosque’ is an inaccurate, exaggerated and dramatic construct indicative of the desire by some elements to exploit the widespread Islamophobia in the U.S in order to obstruct a venture essentially courageous and needful.
I say ‘needful’ because of its true symbolism that has escaped many who have been swept away by the tide of Islamophobia. If any community has borne the brunt of what happened on 9/11, it is the Muslims. Not only do they suffer America’s wars in tottering Afghanistan and devastated Iraq, but also the assault on civil liberties jeopardizing Muslim identity globally, Islamophobia in all its facets_ discrimination, racial profiling, stereotyping, bias and a sightless demonization campaign. The construction of an Islamic Community Centre could be America’s conciliatory overture to the marginalized Muslim community, its initiative to start the healing process. The Centre could function as a sacred space for a victimized community to work to restore its true image and ethos, to highlight the role and contribution of Islam in society, and to actively engage with the American community. The United States, priding itself for its liberalism, must yield that necessary sacred space.
President Obama’s outright support to the venture may help salvage his personal image among the Muslims, but it offers little consolation in the face of stark realities Muslims in America have to grapple with. A recent opinion poll shows over 53% Americans hold Islam in a very negative light_ and the government cannot shy away from responsibility for having contributed substantially through its propaganda machinery to rising anti-Islam sentiment in the U.S since 9/11. The American public is almost exclusively informed on national and global issues by influential media giants run by powerful lobbies. The indicators of rising Islamophobia in the U.S speak loudly about the media’s relentless campaign of dehumanizing and othering of the Muslim persona, and its failure to justly differentiate between a religion followed by billions and the actions of individuals in a particular context who claim to belong to it.
Even more telling is General Petraeus’s take on the matter. In his view, what makes the heinous task of burning scriptures worrying is its consequences that may threaten the U.S military abroad. By this logic, it is the consequences for men in uniform that render the act wrongful, not the act in itself; not the hurt this barbarism will wreak on the sentiments of billions of Muslims worldwide, not that this atrocity flies in the face of the most basic values of human civilization and violates the most fundamental rights of billions. Petraeus’s sentiment was echoed in what White House representative Robert Gibbs said of the matter: that ‘any type of activity that puts our troops in harms way would be a concern to this administration.’ Again, the reprehensibility of the act lies almost exclusively in the fact that it may endanger the lives of American troops. The logic exposes the narrow, narcissistic, nationalistic arrogance that puts the bloated Self over its perceived Other; that makes some lives more valuable than others, ‘óur values’ more inviolable than ‘theirs’.
There has been great concern and speculation in the U.S media over the death of an American soldier in the wake of an uprising in Southern Afghanistan sparked by the news of the 9/11 burning plans. The General shudders to think of what may happen if the images of burning sacred books end up being ‘used’ by terrorists to ‘incite violence.’ He forgets that it is not the ‘use’ of the resulting images that is the trouble, but the act in itself. And any Muslim knowing this could happen in the heart of the United States of America cannot but feel confounded over the state of a nation that allows that to happen.
The United States must stop presenting its warmongering as a result of misguided and ill-advised policies as if it were a clash between ‘our’ values and ‘theirs.’ It must get real and face the fact that it is not hated for its values, but for the lack thereof.
Petraeus enlightens with an analogy that the proposed act is like the Taliban’s, and that ‘The Taliban do the same (burn sacred books?!).’ This sweeping statement again takes as given the myth that the wars going on are about values, religions, scriptures and not policies. The Taliban’s fight never has been about American, Western or Christian values. The logic used here implies that if it was not for images being used to threaten American interests, deranged fanatics like Terry Jones may attack and insult what is most sacred to Muslim sensibility, stab in the softest part, strike where it hurts most and crush the very heart and soul of the world’s 1.8 billion Muslims! The Taliban may be a reviled demon everybody loves to spit on. However, by attempting to strike a comparison between this global enemy and the despicable lunatic from Florida, Petraeus makes the contrast in their respective moral standing only too obvious.
Because, for a Muslim who takes his religion seriously, it is inconceivable to desecrate or even disparage any religious scripture or symbol. It is a core Islamic belief to acknowledge the Divine origin of all revealed religion. The Quran says: “Do not revile those who they invoke apart from God.. .” (Surah Anaam, verse 108). Muslims_ or even the Taliban for that matter_ cannot by any means respond to Jones’s lunacy in equal measure for the demand their faith makes on them. The universalism and pluralistic vision of Islam originating in its basic texts revealed 1400 years ago sets a standard that secular, liberal American society would take ages to reach. The fact that it can allow sick-minded hate-mongers like Jones to not only exist in society but actually propagate and promote their devilish cult with impunity while conventional self-congratulatory lip-service to pacify a minority’s raw sentiments goes on in the backdrop, ought to explode the bubble of what the U.S ‘stands for’. It ought to lead to a serious rethink, for it is about the very soul of America.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

One stands the risk of being dubbed illiberal and unenlightened if one sees in the deluge that has drowned one-fifths of the country, the Hand of God. The floods have, among other things, again brought to the fore the gaping ideological split that cuts across Pakistani society, making it deeply fractured and polarised. The flood, and the way we choose to look at it raises some fundamental questions that strike at the heart of our very self-definition and our worldview_ in fact, our very identity.
Pakistan’s clique of English writers flaunting liberal credentials are clearly irked by those who insist on seeing the flood as God’s handiwork, and emphatically stress on the fact that inanimate nature and its ‘inhumane’ forces act mechanically and indiscriminately.
On the other end of the divide are the ‘punishment theorists’, whose understanding that the floods are God’s anger unleashed on a sinful people does not really sit well. It is both arrogant and ignorant to brand everyone with the same iron. There is a certain unease and discomfort for a thinking mind to buy the theory. The problem with the punishment theory arises when it leads one to indiscriminate judgement rather than self-reflection; and when it deflects emphasis from the actual, material factors and ground realities directly responsible for wreaking a tragedy of these dizzying proportions: that no dams have been built in the country for years, that in a routinely flood-prone country there is no proper flood management system in place, and that we have not been sufficiently alerted to the very real effects of the global climate change.
Both perspectives are reductionist and lopsided_ the liberal view for ignoring the normative dimension and failing to appreciate the worth of the realization of one’s powerlessness and the humbling it brings. It ignores the understanding central to the Muslim worldview that everything that happens must be seen as a piece in the Divinely-laid scheme of things. Every occurrence fits into the mural of God’s Plan; that there are no random accidents, no meaningless chaos or anarchy in nature. For, Nature is Allah’s manifestation, and its processes are by His Design.
The punishment theorists, on the other hand, oversimplify a complex, multi-faceted reality in order to make sense of an inordinate phenomenon.
What is ignored in the process is the insight offered by some basic religious texts that deal with the subject. For one, the Quran talks at great length of natural calamity and cites historical instances of punishment through natural disasters to rebellious peoples. However, it has to be understood that within the framework of Absolute Justice, punishment becomes justified only when Truth has been clearly established and vindicated, and Falsehood exposed for all to see; and when the choice between Truth and Falsehood has been made in complete earnest by all. This criterion is fulfilled in the lifetimes of prophets. Hence the utter rejection and hostility after full knowledge, of a prophet’s message warranted divine punishment. With the ending of the line of prophethood, this is no longer the case. Hence it is erroneous to see a natural calamity in this day and age as wholesale, all-out, indiscriminate punishment to its victims of the kind the scriptures talk about.
Natural calamity after the time of prophets, functions as a reminder to man of his vulnerability as opposed to the Power of the Universal Sovereign, and of the transience of life; it serves to revive in the heart of man that God-consciousness, awe and fear so necessary to cut him down to size when he tends to get out of his boots. It functions as a test of faith, of patience and of man’s capacity to heal, help and alleviate the suffering of his fellow-man.
Another dimension that needs to be brought into focus is that God, in His infinite Mercy, recompenses every iota of suffering borne by His slaves , and that people of faith who lose their lives to accidents, disasters, calamities are blessed with the ranks of martyrdom. Clearly, being struck by a calamity does not make one less fortunate or more deserving of God’s Wrath. This understanding infuses in the Muslim’s heart compassion towards the sufferers.
A tradition attributed to Ayesha, the Mother of the Believers (R.A) sheds light on the matter with amazing precision. When asked how natural calamities were to be interpreted, she said: “(It is) A punishment for the disbelievers and a reminder to the believers.” (From the audio "Natural Disasters" by Shaikh Faisal Abdullah).
What this makes clear is that there can be no generalizations and no judgement, for the knowledge of the state of belief in people’s hearts lies with Allah alone, and whether a calamity becomes a punishment or a test for those affected by it and those witnessing it depends on every individual’s inner state, impossible to be judged by you or me. It is our attitude towards a calamity_ whether we respond to it with patience and learn from it the right lessons, or whether our hearts remain hard and unyielding_ that makes it either a punishment or a reminder for us. It is always those who humble themselves and can acquire the courage and faith to say “We belong to Allah, and to Him alone is our return” , that emerge triumphant out of every calamity, and whose indomitable spirit no calamity of whatever magnitude can crush.
Out of an instinctive aversion to a ‘not-so-liberal’ worldview, the ‘liberal fatwa ’ on the flood by our dogmatic liberals misses the essential point. It fails to appreciate the value of understanding ourselves as underlings to a Greater Power_ an understanding that humbles and imbues us with a sense of responsibility as we conduct ourselves in life, and a God-consciousness that makes us constantly strive to better ourselves; that gives us resilience and stoicism in the face of trial as well as compassion towards fellow human beings; that makes us conscious of our greater purpose and that at the end of the day we all are to stand in the Court of the Ultimate Sovereign with nothing but ourselves; that “His grasp is over all vision... and He is acquainted with all things.”
.....................................................................
“How wonderful is the affair of the believer, for his affairs are all good, and this applies to no one but the believer. If something good happens to him, he is thankful for it and that is good for him. If something bad happens to him, he bears it with patience and that is good for him.” (Hadith of the Prophet PBUH, narrated by Muslim, 2999).